Customer Reviews

Paris: The Secret History

5 star:		(7)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(7)

 

 

I read this book two years ago. Out of the blue, I decided to write a review. It is the first time I read the reviews on this book on Amazon. I must say that I am surprised at how many don't like this book.

Not everyone have time to read a dry 800 page book of the official history of France and another 800 page book of the social history of France and another 200 page Paris tourist guide book, so as a substitute, this 400 page of a fun history of Paris book seems like a great deal. For a introduction to France's history, a history of Paris would certainly be sufficient because many things that you see in Paris can be linked to parts of history. Examples: description of Paris' city plan in Roman times reminds us that France used to be "occupied" by the Romans. Then there is the Revolution, the crowning of Napoleon, the defeat of Napolean by the Germans, the Nazi occupation... The additional benefit of relating a historical event to a specific Parisian street/architecture/artifact in Paris is that it helps reader to remember the event better than just reading a history book.

Now, if you read a pure history book, you probably won't learn about where is the bar that the students and artists used to drink, where the jugglars used to perform, where the rich people used to live, where the prostitues used to linger. There probably would be less detailed description of the lifes of famous French actresses, the circumstances under which the numerous bridges across the Seine were built, when did postal service begin in Paris. There are also references to famous French writers, painters and architects for those are into the arts/literature. (maybe a little less references to musicians than I'd like)

I personally have a sort of interesting relationship with Paris. I must have been there 7 times, but have had only two short stints as a proper tourist instead of being on business. So, I know the streets, historical sites and museums of Paris reasonably well. I know quite well where modren Parisian shops and work. However, for myself at least, this book introduces a different aspect of Paris to me. Instead of just looking at the surface of the city, which is the modern or touristy fascade, I have a deeper sense of the myraid actors, glorious or hideous ones, that has shaped the city.

One complain I have about this book is that its map is too small and too unclear. It is a pity. I would love to trace everything the author mention on a map so that I can visit the place next time. Normally, this issue would cause me to reduce the star from 5 to 4.5, thus 4. But, given how many people don't like the book, I have to give it a 5 to stress my point.

This book is packed with fun details and informative history. It is organized into short chapters. It was a very quick read for me. I am pretty sure that I will read this book again at some point. (unfortunately, my original book is falling apart)

First, a quick warning - I am a medieval scholar working on a history of interaction between the Capetian kings of the middle ages and the royal basilica of Saint-Denis. As I am preparing to return to Paris for additional research, I thought I'd pick up a book that might give me more insight into periods that are NOT in my research field.

If you knew nothing about France in the middle ages before reading this book, you still know nothing about France in the middle ages after reading this book.

A few examples of egregious errors which could easily have been fixed with some fact checking:

1. Despite his claims to the contrary, Charles the Bald was not from the Robertine line (the counts of Paris who later became the Capetian kings); he was the grandson of Charlemagne. That would be the Carolingian house, not the Robertine.

2. Louis VI of France did NOT die without an heir. His eldest son, Philip, died young, but his second eldest son Louis took the throne as Louis the VII.

3. The good administration of Philip Augustus could not be attributed to Abbot Suger of Saint-Denis, as that gentleman had died in 1151 and Philip II Augustus was born in 1165.

4. One may claim a lot of things about Philip the Fair (Philip the VI of France, who died in 1314), but incompetent is NOT one of them. An incompetent person would fail in those tasks he set himself; Philip was remarkably successful. One might disagree with his goals, but that's another question. Philip deposed a powerful pope (Boniface VIII) and reversed all his edicts, had a pope of his own liking elected in the place of Boniface, established the Avignon papacy, prosecuted the Templar order (which involved rounding up all the chief officers of the Templars everywhere in France at the same time in a feat of synchronized action never previously achieved), expanded the holdings of the king into the north to increase his personal revenue, married his daughter to the king of England, oversaw the expansion of wealth and prosperity in Paris to an unheard of degree, kicked the Jews out of France and confiscated their wealth (again - one may deplore the deeds, but he was certainly competent enough to perform the act), prosecuted two of his daughters-in-law for adultery, and waged an on-going war with the Counts of Flanders.

Philip was, however, eternally strapped for cash. In general, this was the result of a long-term war in the north, along with very expensive building campaigns and exorbitant weddings and knighting services. While in many ways Philip was a man to dislike, he held to a strict and inflexible sense of morality and utter divine entitlement as king, and modern historians currently believe that his choice to suppress and destroy the Knights Templar was based more upon his abhorrence of sodomy and heresy (which were the same charge by the early 14th century) than his greed. After all, as Mr. Hussy does not deign to tell the reader, Philip gained very little profit from seizing the properties of the order, and was nearly as broke afterward as he was before. When he did levy taxes to pay for events like dowries, knighting services, and wars of defense, he was willing to cancel those taxes again as soon as the need was met - he considered doing so a moral necessity for a good and godly king.

5. Hussy states clearly that the French crown went through a crisis of succession after the death of Philip's heir, Louis X, in 1317. Wrong. Philip the Fair, at his death, had three grown sons - Louis, Philip, and Charles. Louis succeeded his father but died soon afterward, leaving a pregnant wife and a daughter of dubious parentage. The wife delivered a premature child, a boy named John the Postumous, who followed his father in death within a very short period. John was succeeded by Philip V, who reigned for several years and whose acts on the throne seem to indicate that, had he lived longer, he would have proven himself a capable and moderate king. At his premature death, his younger brother Charles took the throne, but also died soon afterward in 1322. Hussy skips all that detail, jumping right to a crisis of succession. For those not familiar, this involves the descendants of Isabelle, daughter of Philip the Fair, who married Edward II of England. Her sons would then have claim to the French throne through the female line. The uncles of Charles IV challenged that claim using a mis-application of the Salic Law, and succeeded to the throne themselves, an act applauded by the vast majority of the French who did not wish to be ruled by the English. The uncle of Charles IV was the first of the Valois rulers of France, but they were NOT a new line of kings.

Hussy states that this was the creation of a new line of kings. It was not. The French monarchy was able to claim an unbroken line of rulers from Hugh Capet through the French Revolution. When they executed Louis XVI, they called him Citizen Louis Capet - recognition of his descent from the founder of the royal lineage. Several times, the throne passed to cadet branches - from the Valois to the Bourbon, for example - but they were always in that same house. These shifts occurred without civil war, a feat not matched by the English who suffered several wars of succession.

6. You cannot go to the Ile-St.-Louis and see the house where Heloise received tutoring from Abelard. You can see the building which replaced it, but not that building, as very little remains of the city from the 12th century. Most houses were built of wood during that period.

7. Don't take his maps seriously. No permanent bridge between the Ile-de-la-Cite and the island currently named the Ile-St.-Louis existed in the middle ages. In 1313, the citizens of Paris built a pontoon bridge between the islands to facilitate ceremonies to enhance the knighting of Philip the Fair's sons. If he's wrong in this point, the maps are incorrect in many others.

In general, I was appalled by the kinds of basic mistakes made by this author - mistakes which could have been fixed with some really elementary fact checking. He seemed to be familiar with the work of Villon and with one of the accounts of the knighting ceremony of Philip the Fair's sons in 1313, but his knowledge of the sources and the experts who write on this subject was shallow. Where are the luminous images of the bridges of Paris found in the 1317 manuscript, the Vie de St-Denis, presented to Philip V? Where is the 13th century description of the urban scenes of Paris quoted so regularly in the secondary sources?

I understand that authors of popular histories like to paint themselves as jack-of-all-trade authorities, but you have to do your homework. How nice that you've read some Jacques le Goff; now read some Duby, Bloch, some Elizabeth A. R. Brown, Charlotte Lecaze, Panofsky, etc. Read up on the gothic architecture of Saint-Denis, which was far more important and revolutionary than that found in Notre Dame. But Mr. Hussy - you don't know medieval history. Not even a little. You need to consult with those who do.

And please please - don't reference Dan Brown's deplorable book when outlining the history of the Knights Templar. Certainly he's the elephant in the room, but you can drop him into a footnote if you feel you must. There's a lot of really excellent scholarship out there on the Templars, but the conspiracy theory stuff is just a visible ploy to garner attention. It's not worthy of any book claiming to be a "history".

I love this book, the detail is fascinating and the back and forth relationship to modern day Paris, is what keeps me reading. I also appreciate the lore of the catholic references to saints and locales, but he doesn't sugar coat the history. He's done a lot of fascinating reading and research and summarizes his findings in an easy and enjoyable format. Although it takes me a while to digest each section, I still think it is worthwhile reading. Having been to Paris and going back in the spring, I wanted a comprehensive look at the city with the not so pleasant facts thrown in. This has met my requiremnts.

I *tried* to finish this book. Many times. I thought it would provide me with, oh, I dunno, a "secret" history of Paris that couldn't be found in all the other histories of Paris out there. But no--not much here is surprising, secret, or even unknown to people who've read Alistair Horne's work (with all its flaws), or Pierre Goubert's, or even (seriously!) the Lonely Planet guides.

That said, I could have stood a repeat of interesting French history, had this author not skipped back and forth through history (several centuries to and fro w/in a couple of pages), paused to natter on about his own interaction with modern folk, managed to leave out notable women (e.g. Mme Pompadour?), and thought himself endlessly entertaining when he tittered about "sodomy" and "sodomites" and "sodatic culture." Hussey's casual description of Jews as "vermin," as noted by another reviewer, is matched by his casual "aren't-they-silly" homophobia.

Parisian history is complex and fascinating, like any city's history. So are the histories of sexuality, religion, race, gender, etc., etc., etc., especially as those histories intersect. There are better authors who have written better books on those intersections. Save your money.

I purchased the book looking for the inside history of Paris. Instead, I got a rehash of France history from the point of view of foreigner living in Paris pretending to be a French intellectual. The author pays more attention to whores and brothels, than to the architecture of the city. It took 3 starts to finish the book. If you can afford it, fly to Paris and take the bus tour. You will learn more about Paris.

I do not recommend this book.
Andrew Hussein is a well respected scholar yet his book on Paris and its history is at times disorganized. Skipping from one era to another frequently makes it confusing. The way he writes about the Jews (vermin), the homosexuals (laughable) and the prostitues (seemingly present in every chapter) tends to show a bias which does not add anything to the content of the book. The historic facts are well researched, but his unsubstantiated opinions about the French and the Parisians take away from the credibility of the book. It is hard to read and to finish, it is mostly pedantic and dry. Andrew may live in Paris, but seems to hold much contempt for the French and the Parisians.
Paris like all European capitals has a complex history. In spite of the innumerable troubles it went through over the centuries, Paris has managed to remain a great city that many love even if it is hard to comprehend and is ever-changing. A great disappointment awaits those who love Paris and eagerly want to know the City better.

I came across this work more than two years ago and enjoyed every bit of it. Having visited Paris more than 20 times in my life, and having been lucky enough to live there for a short time, I found the book addictive and informative and above all a greatly entertaining read. The author has his opinions and pet topics, it might seem, but don't we all? This is an excellent addition to one's own library and a great gift for anyone who is enamoured of Paris.

I can't say enough good about this book! I picked it up at Shakespeare and Company in Paris during my last visit, with the intention of boning up on some of the city's history; I expected it to be more or less dry reading with occasional interesting bits. To my surprise, it gripped me from the first pages and had me reading as eagerly as a particularly good novel! I had already visited Paris a few times and had done some reading about it, so I knew I wanted to learn more about some specific sites and topics; this book did provide some very entertaining information about those, but it also introduced me to some new sites and facts that inspired me to get out to some corners of the city I would otherwise have missed. In particular, I found this book most helpful to have read prior to visiting the Musee Carnavalet, which is Paris' museum showcasing the Revolution and other important events in the city's history (as opposed to being an art-based museum). I would most especially recommend this book to experienced Paris travelers who want to dig a little deeper into the city's secrets, but really it would be good for any intellectually curious traveler to the city--armchair included--who wants to delve into details not to be found in the tourist guidebooks. All in all: Fantastic book, great read, good investment!

I received this as a gift and have been working my way through it, sections at a time. I have about 50 pages to go, but am greatly entertained and amused by Mr. Hussey's drole but entertaining history of the world's most fabulous city. All in all, a noble work.

There's a lot of interesting history dredged up in Andrew Hussey's "Paris, the Secret History", a blood drenched, often gripping account of the glittering world capital that offsets the glamorous and polished image the very name evokes. Having recently visited both London and Paris, I purchased this book, along with "London: the Biography" by Peter Ackroyd. I had attempted, without success, to get through Ackroyd's biography of Shakespeare, but decided to read his London book first, hoping for better results. Ackroyd is a very highly regarded writer, so I can only assume that either I'm missing something or am sorely lacking the intelligence required to enjoy his tomes. There are passages of great wit to be found in "London", to be sure, and also chapters that began interestingly enough, but somehow, for me, seemed to get bogged down in dry, almost academic, prose that caused my eyes to glaze over, making me want to sling the book across the room.

Fortunately, the Paris book by Andrew Hussey doesn't present the same problem. As a matter of fact, the book moves quickly forward from the city's ancient history through various wars and conflicts, ending up in the present day. Along the way, we are variously entertained and repulsed by a colorful and, often outrageous cast of real-life characters who are so vividly described that it's hard to believe that they actually existed. And the trials and trepidations faced by everyday Parisians, particularly during the time of the French Revolution through the second World War, are horrific and heart-rending.

The most negative comment I have about this book is that there seems to be an undercurrent of thinly veiled homophobia present throughout. Maybe homophobia is too strong a word, but there have been notable (sometimes notorious) gay men and women intimately involved in the long, eventful history of Paris, and the author is clearly uncomfortable with this subject, most especially regarding homosexual males. There are passages where his disdain, as well as his distaste, is evident. This added a somewhat sour note to a book that is, otherwise, fascinating, well-researched, and, in most cases, well-written.